博碩士論文 974207019 詳細資訊




以作者查詢圖書館館藏 以作者查詢臺灣博碩士 以作者查詢全國書目 勘誤回報 、線上人數:3 、訪客IP:35.175.201.14
姓名 黃湘淇(Hsiang-Chi Huang)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 人力資源管理研究所
論文名稱 擔責與參考架構訓練對考核結果正確度之影響-2x3實驗因子設計
(An Experimental Study of Accountability and Frame of Reference Training on Rating Accuracy)
相關論文
★ 組織精簡與員工態度探討 - 以A公司人力重整計劃為例。★ 訓練成效評估及影響訓練移轉之因素探討----一項時間管理訓練之研究
★ 主管領導風格、業務員工作習慣及專業證照對組織承諾與工作績效之相關研究★ 研發專業人員職能需求之研究-以某研究機構為例
★ 人力資本、創新資本與組織財務績效關聯性之研究★ 企業人力資源跨部門服務HR人員之角色、工作任務及所需職能之研究
★ 新進保全人員訓練成效之評估★ 人力資源專業人員職能之研究-一項追蹤性的研究
★ 影響企業實施接班人計劃的成功因素★ 主管管理能力、工作動機與工作績效之關聯性探討─以A公司為例
★ 影響安全氣候因子之探討-以汽車製造業為例★ 台電公司不同世代員工工作價值觀差異及對激勵措施偏好之研究
★ 不同的激勵措施對員工工作滿足及工作投入之影響性分析★ 工作價值觀、工作滿足對組織承諾之影響(以A通訊公司研發人員為例)
★ 薪資公平知覺與組織承諾關係之探討-以內外控人格特質為干擾變項★ 改善活動訓練成效評量之研究
檔案 [Endnote RIS 格式]    [Bibtex 格式]    [相關文章]   [文章引用]   [完整記錄]   [館藏目錄]   [檢視]  [下載]
  1. 本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
  2. 已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
  3. 請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。

摘要(中) 現今組織中的績效考核,往往由於缺乏公正的評量,而使人力資源管理的效益不如預期。過去研究幾乎未針對擔責(Accountability)與參考架構訓練(Frame of Reference Training)實驗設計做探討。因此,本研究採用實驗設計,讓考核者對績效評估擔責,以及使用參考架構訓練,以檢視其提升考核品質的效果。最後以整合性的觀點,交互進行擔責與參考架構訓練,再次檢驗考核正確度的提升。本研究以台灣北部某一大型醫院中68位中、高階主管為研究樣本,將其分成六組:(1)程序擔責組並接受參考架構訓練;(2)結果擔責組並接受參考架構訓練;(3)無擔責組並接受參考架構訓練;(4)程序擔責組,無訓練;(5)結果擔責組,無訓練;(6)無擔責組,亦無訓練。研究結果發現,接受參考架構訓練的考核者對寬容誤差與考核正確度有顯著影響,同時擔責與接受參考架構訓練的考核者亦對寬容誤差與考核正確度有顯著影響,而擔責組本身不具任何影響。最後,本研究針對研究結果進行討論並對後續研究與績效管理提供參考方向。
摘要(英) This study tested effects of holding performance rater accountable for either the procedural or outcome accountability they follow to make evaluation or trained with frame of reference (FOR) training on rating accuracy. 68 hospital managers listened to voice clips of 3 telephone marketers solicitation and processed performance rating in an experiment, which crossed 3 levels of accountability with 2 levels of FOR training. The impact of the accountabilities and FOR training on rating accuracy was assessed across six conditions in the following experimental framework: (1) no accountability trained with FOR training, (2) procedural accountability with FOR training, (3) outcome accountability with FOR training, (4) no accountability without training, (5) procedural accountability without training, (6) outcome accountability without training. The dependent variable was the correlation on leniency, halo, and distance accuracy of performance ratings in field settings. Results showed that FOR training upgrades rating accuracy and reduces halo effect, and outcome accountability with FOR training increased rating accuracy and procedural accountability lowered it.
關鍵字(中) ★ 程序擔責
★ 結果擔責
★ 參考架構訓練
★ 考核正確度
關鍵字(英) ★ procedural accountability
★ outcome accountabilit
論文目次 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract i
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ..................................................................................................... iv
Chapters
1. Introduction 1
2. Literature Review 2
Ability Dimension on Rater Training 2
Motivation Dimension on Rater Accountability 3
Rater Training and Rater Accountability 6
3. Method ..…. 7
Subjects 7
Stimulus Material 8
Rating Scale 8
Operational Definitions 9
Procedure 9
FOR Training 10
Dependent Variables 10
Environmental Control 11
4. Results ….. 12
Manipulation checks 12
ANOVA Results 13
Interactions 15
5. Discussion 16
Implications of Findings 17
Limitations 18
References …. … 20
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Six Groups of Experiments 8
2. Means and Standard Deviations of Dependent Variables 13
3. ANOVA Summary 14
參考文獻 REFERENCES
Ackerman, L., and Humphreys, L. G. 1990. “Individual differences theory in industrial and organizational psychology.” In M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough(eds). Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2nd edition. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Arkes, H.R., 1991. “Cost and benefits of judgment errors: Implications for debasing. Psychological Bulletin, 110: 486-498.
Athey, T. R., and McIntyre, R. M. 1987. “Effects of rater training on rater accuracy: levels -of-processing theory and social facilitation theory perspectives.” Journal of Applied psychology, 72: 567-572.
Beckner, D., and Highhouse, S., Hazer. J. T. 1998. “Effects of upward accountability and rating purpose on peer-rater inflation and delay: a field experiment.” Journal of Organizational Behavior. 19: 209-214.
Bernardin, H. J., and Buckley, M. R. 1981. “Strategies in rater training.” Academy of Management Review, 6: 205-212
Bernardin, H. J., Buckley, M. R., Tyler, C. I. and Wiese, D. S. 2001. “A reconsideration of strategies for rater training.” Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management. 221-274.
Blumberg, H. H. 1972. “Communication of interpersonal evaluations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23: 157-162.
Bonner, S. E., Hastie, R., Sprinkle, G. B., and Young, S. M. 2000. “A review of the effects of financial incentives on performance in laboratory tasks” Implications for Management accounting. 12: 19-64.
Brtek, M. D., and Motowidlo S. J. 2002. “Effects of procedure and outcome accountability on interviews validity.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 185-191.
Curtis. A. B., Harvey R. D., and Ravden. D. 2005. “Source of political distortions in performance appraisals: appraisal purpose and rater accountability.” Group and Organization Management, 30: 42-60.
Decenzo, D.A., and Robbins, 2005. Fundamentals of Human Resource Management (8th ed) , Hobbken, New Jersey, Wiley.
Doney, P.M., and Armstrong, G.M. 1996. “Effects of accountability on symbolic information search and information analysis by organizational buyers.” Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 24: 57-65.
Dose, J. J., and Klimoski, R. J. 1995. “Doing the right thing in the workplace: responsibility in the face of accountability. ” Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal, 8: 35-56.
Fisher, C.D. 1979. “Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: a laboratory investigation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 64: 533-40.
Frink, D., and Klimoski, R. 1999. “The moderating effect of accountability on the conscientiousness-performance relationship.” Journal of Business and Psychology, 13, 515–524.
Ginzell, L. E., Kramer, R. M., and Sutton R. I. 1992. “OIM as a reciprocal influence process: The neglected role of the organizational audience.” Research in Organizational Behavior, 15: 227-266.
Glen, R. M. 1990. “Performance appraisal: An unnerving yet useful process.” Public Personnel Management, 19: 1-10.
Gordon, R. A., Rozelle, R. M.and Baxter, J. C. 1998. “The effect applicant age, job level and accountability on the evaluation of job applicants.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41: 20-33.
Grenny, J., Maxfield, D., and Shimberg, A. 2008. “How to Have Influence” Leadership and Organizational Studies, 50: 47-52.
Grover, V. 1993. “An empirically derived model for the adoption of customer-based interorganizational systems.” In Decision Sciences, 24: 603-639.
Ilgen, D. R., and Knowlton, W. A. 1980. “Performance attribution effects on feedback from supervisors.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25: 441-456.
Jaramillo, F., and Marshall, G. W. 2004. “Critical success factors in the personal selling process: An empirical investigation of Ecuadorian salespeople in the banking industry.” The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 22: 9-25.
Jones, R. G. 1992. Attention allocation choices as an influence on accuracy and discriminant validity of observational ratings: When are we diligent? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Jones, E.E., and Wortman, C. 1973. Ingratiation: An attribution approach. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Katz, D., and Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
Klimoski, R., and Inks, L. 1990. “Accountability forces in performance appraisal.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 45: 194-208.
Levin, I. P, Schneider, S. L.and Gaeth, G. J. 1998. “All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76: 149-88.
Locke, E.A., and Latham .G. P., 1990. Goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
London, M., Smither, J. W., and Adsit, D. J. 1997. “Accountability: the Achilles’ heel of multisource feedback.” Group and Organization Management. 22: 162-184.
Longenecker, C. O. 1989 “Truth or consequences: Politics and performance appraisals.” Business Horizons, 32: 76-82.
Longenecker, C. O., and Gioia, D. A. 1994. “The politics of executive appraisals.” Journal of Compensation and Benefits, 10: 5-11.
Longenecker, C. I., Sims, H. P., and Gioia, D. A. 1987. “Behind the mask: The politics of performance appraisal.” Academy of Management Executive, 1: 188-193.
Maier, N.R.F. 1955. Psychology in industry. Boston, MA: Houghton - Mifflin.
McIntyre R. M. and Smith, D. E. and Hassett, C.E.1984. “Accuracy of Performance Ratings as Affected by Rater Training and Perceived Purpose of Rating.”Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 147-156
Murphy, K. R., and Cleveland, J. N. 1995. Performance Appraisal: An organizational perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
O’ Reilly, C. A. III and Chatman, J. A. 1994. “Working smarter and harder: A Longitudinal Study of Managerial Success.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 603-627.
Palmer, J.K., and Feldman, J. K. 2005. “Accountability and need for cognition effects on contrast, halo, and accuracy in performance ratings.” The Journal of Psychology, 3: 127-139.
Pesta, B. J. , Kass, D. S. , Dunegan, K. J. 2005. “Image theory and the appraisal of employee performance: To screen or not to screen?” Journal of Business and Psychology, 19: 341-360.
Pinder, C. 1984. Work motivation: theory issues and applications. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Roberts, N. 2002. “Keeping public officials accountable through dialogue: resolving the accountability paradox. “Public Administration Review, 62: 658-669.
Roch, S. G., and Ayman Roya, Newhouse Noelle, Harris, M. 2005. “Effect of Identifiability, rating audience, and conscientiousness on rating level.” International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13: 53-69.
Pulakos, E. D. 1984 “A comparison of rater training programs. Error training and accuracy training.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 581-588.
Pulakos, E. D. 1986 “The development of training programs to increase accuracy with different rating tasks.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process. 38: 79-91.
Salvemini, N. J., and Reilly, R. R.1993. “The influence of rater motivation on assimilation effects and accuracy in performance ratings.” Organizational behavior and Human Decision Process, 55: 41-60.
Scherer, R. F, Owen,C. L, and Brodzinski, J. D. 1991. “Rater and ratee sex effects on performance evaluations in a field setting a multivariate analysis: Method participants performance appraisal instrument and procedure results discussion and supplementary analysis conclusions references.” Management Communication Quarterly, 5: 174-192
Siegel-Jacobs, K., and Yates, J. F.1996. “Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on judgment quality.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65: 1-17.
Simonson, I., and Nye, P. 1992. “The effect of accountability on susceptibility to decision errors.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51: 416-446.
Simonson. I., and Nye. P. 1992. “De-escalation strategies: A comparison of techniques for reducing commitment to losing courses of action.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 419-426.
Simonson, I., and Staw. B. M. 1992. “Escalation Strategies: A comparison of Techniques for reducing for commitment to losing course of action.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 419-426.
Smith, D.E. 1986. “Training programs for performance appraisal” A Review of Management, 28-40.
Smith, V. L., and Walker, M. 1993. “Monetary rewards and decision cost in experimental economics”, Economic Inquiry, 31: 245-261.
Stamoulis, D.T., and Hauenstein, N. M. A. 1993. “Rater training and rating accuracy: training for dimensional accuracy versus training for ratee differentiation.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 994-1003.
Sulsky, L. M., and Day, D. V. 1992. “Frame training and cognitive categorization: An empirical investigation of rater memory Issues.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 501-510.
Tessor, A., and Rosen, S. 1975. “The reluctance to transmit bad news”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 8: 193-232.
Tetlock, P. E., 1983a. “Accountability and complexity of thought”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45: 74-83.
Tetlock, P. E., 1983b. “Accountability and the perseverance of first impressions.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 46: 285-292.
Tetlock, P.E., and Boettger, R. 1989. “Accountability: social magnifier of the dilution effect.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 388-398.
Tetlock, P. E., Skitka, L., and Boettger, R. 1989. “Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: conformity, complexity, and bolstering.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 632-640.
Tetlock, P.E. and Kim, J. I. 1987. “Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 700-9.
Weigold, M. E, and Schlenker, B. R. 1991. “Accountability and risk taking.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17: 25-29.
Woehr, D. J. 1994. “Understanding frame-of-reference Training: The impact of training on recall of performance information.”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 525-534.
Zhang, Y. L., and Mittal, V. 2005. “Decision difficulty: effects of procedural and outcome accountability.” Journal of Consumer Research, l: 465-462.
指導教授 林文政(Wen-jeng Lin) 審核日期 2011-1-21
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   
網路書籤 Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明